AURITT v. AURITT et al

Filing 178

PROCEDURAL ORDER By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (clp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
GARY AURITT,
PLAINTIFF
V.

SHANNON AURITT,
DEFENDANT

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 2:18-CV-471-DBH

PROCEDURAL ORDER
The defendant moved to have this case heard quickly, saying she was
willing to consent to the Magistrate Judge hearing it (ECF No. 157). In response,
the plaintiff said: “Plaintiff will do his best to work with Defendant Shannon
Auritt to pick a date certain for trial that will not interfere with her wedding
plans, which the Magistrate Judge might be able to accommodate pursuant to
Section 3 of the Court’s ‘Order on Pending Motions’ [ECF Doc. 156].” Pl.’s Resp.
(ECF No. 170) (emphasis added). In the Order referred to, I had said that I was
“not in a position to grant a date certain for this bench trial” due to the state of
the criminal docket and that “[i]f the parties desire a date certain, they should
consent to trial before the Magistrate Judge who may be able to accommodate
them if a courtroom is available. Otherwise, the case will be on a trailing list for
June.” Order on Pending Mots. (ECF No. 156).
It is immaterial to the Court whether the parties choose to consent to the
Magistrate Judge and voluntariness must be preserved, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c)(2); D. Me. Loc. R. 73, but the uncertainty the parties have created here
produces scheduling difficulties given the constraints of the pandemic.

Accordingly, the parties shall by May 7, 2021, either file a consent or notify
the Clerk’s Office that they have decided not to consent to proceed before the
Magistrate Judge, without revealing which party declines to consent. See D. Me.
Loc. R. 73. In the latter event, the case will remain on a trailing June trial list.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2